[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63021-63029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28104]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[FRL-7583-7, E-Docket ID No. A-2001-0004 (Legacy Docket ID No. A-90-
37)]


Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment 
New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action on reconsideration; amendment to final 
rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 31, 2002 and March 10, 2003, EPA revised 
regulations governing the major New Source Review (NSR) programs 
mandated by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 
Following these actions, the Administrator received a number of 
petitions for reconsideration. On July 30, 2003, EPA announced its 
reconsideration of certain issues arising from the final rules of 
December 31, 2002. We (the EPA) requested public comment on six issues 
for which we granted reconsideration. As a result of this 
reconsideration process, we have concluded that two clarifications to 
the underlying rules are warranted, which are: To include a definition 
of ``replacement unit'' and to clarify that the plantwide applicability 
limitation (PAL) baseline calculation procedures for newly constructed 
units do not apply to modified units. With respect to all other issues 
raised by the petitioners, we deny the requests for reconsideration.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final action is effective on January 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-90-37 (E-Docket ID No. OAR-2001-0004), 
containing supporting information used to develop the proposed rule and 
the final rule, is available for public inspection and copying between 
8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except government 
holidays) at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102T), Room B108, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 566-1742, fax (202) 566-1741. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the 
WWW. Following signature, a copy of the notice will be posted on the 
EPA's NSR page: http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynn Hutchinson, Information 
Transfer and Program Integration Division (C339-03), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 
541-5795, or electronic mail at [email protected], or Ms. Janet 
McDonald, at the same street address, telephone (919) 541-1450, or 
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Are the Regulated Entities?

    Entities potentially affected by the subject rule for today's 
action include sources in all industry groups. The majority of sources 
potentially affected are expected to be in the following groups.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       SIC
           Industry Group              \a\            NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Services..................     491  221111, 221112, 221113,
                                              221119, 221121, 221122
Petroleum Refining.................     291  324110
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals.....     281  325181, 325120, 325131,
                                              325182, 211112, 325998,
                                              331311, 325188
Industrial Organic Chemicals.......     286  325110, 325132, 325192,
                                              325188, 325193, 325120,
                                              325199
Miscellaneous Chemical Products....     289  325520, 325920, 325910,
                                              325182, 325510
Natural Gas Liquids................     132  211112
Natural Gas Transport..............     492  486210, 221210
Pulp and Paper Mills...............     261  322110, 322121, 322122,
                                              322130
Paper Mills........................     262  322121, 322122
Automobile Manufacturing...........     371  336111, 336112, 336211,
                                              336992, 336322, 336312,
                                              336330, 336340, 336350,
                                              336399, 336212, 336213
Pharmaceuticals....................     283  325411, 325412, 325413,
                                              325414
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification
\b\ North American Industry Classification System. Entities potentially
  affected by the subject rule for today's action also include State,
  local, and tribal governments.


[[Page 63022]]

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under E-Docket ID No. OAR-2001-0004 (Legacy Docket ID No. A-90-
37). The official public docket consists of the documents specifically 
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other 
information related to this action. Although a part of the official 
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials 
that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 
20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable 
fee may be charged for copying.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of a portion of the public docket is 
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, 
EPA Dockets. Interested persons may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the 
index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access 
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate 
docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in section I.B.1. EPA intends to work 
towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available 
docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the WWW. Following 
signature, a copy of the notice will be posted on the EPA's NSR page: 
http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. What are the regulated entities?
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Where can I obtain additional information?
    D. How is this preamble organized?
II. Background
III. Today's Action
    A. Six Issues for which Reconsideration Was Granted
    B. Remaining Issues in Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
V. Statutory Authority
VI. Judicial Review

II. Background

    For a brief history of the NSR rulemaking process that preceded 
today's final action, see our discussion at 68 FR 44623 (July 30, 
2003). On December 31, 2002, we issued a final rule (67 FR 80186) that 
revised regulations governing the major NSR programs (final rules).\1\ 
The revisions included five major changes to the major NSR program that 
will reduce burden, maximize operating flexibility, improve 
environmental quality, provide additional certainty, and promote 
administrative efficiency. These elements include baseline actual 
emissions, actual-to-projected-actual emissions methodology, plantwide 
applicability limitations (PALs), Clean Units, and pollution control 
projects (PCPs). The final rules also codified our longstanding policy 
regarding the calculation of baseline emissions for electric utility 
steam generating units (EUSGUs). In addition, the final action: (1) 
Responded to comments we received on a proposal to adopt a methodology, 
developed by the American Chemistry Council (formerly known as the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)) and other industry 
petitioners, to determine whether a major stationary source has 
undertaken a major modification based on its potential emissions; and 
(2) included a new section that spells out in one place how a major 
modification is determined under the various major NSR applicability 
options. This topic had previously been addressed primarily in the 
definition section of the major NSR regulations. We also clarified 
where to find the provisions in the revised rules and codified a 
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' that clarifies which 
pollutants are regulated under the Act for purposes of major NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The December 31, 2002 final rules did not act on several 
issues proposed in 1996. We intend to act on some or all issues from 
the 1996 proposal in subsequent Federal Register notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 28, 2003, we sent notice to affected States that, 
consistent with our proposal in 1996, we were revising the references 
to 40 CFR 52.21 in delegated States' plans to reflect the December 31, 
2002 changes in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) (40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b) through 
(bb)). This FIP applies in any area that does not have an approved PSD 
program in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and in all Indian 
country. The notice was subsequently published in the Federal Register 
on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11316).
    Following publication of the December 31, 2002 and March 10, 2003 
Federal Register notices, and prior to July 2003, the Administrator 
received numerous petitions, filed pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of 
the CAA,

[[Page 63023]]

requesting reconsideration of many aspects of the final rules.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Petitions for reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 final 
rule that EPA received before July 2003 were filed by: Northeastern 
States (CT, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT); South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (CA); and Environmental Groups (led by 
NRDC, Earthjustice, Clean Air Task Force, and Environmental 
Defense). Additional petitioners joined existing petitions: The 
People of California and California Air Resources Board (joined 
South Coast and Northeastern States petitions); Yolo-Solano Air 
Quality Management District (CA) (joined South Coast petition); 
Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Monterey Air Pollution Control Districts 
(CA); and Sacramento Air Quality Management District (CA) (joined 
South Coast petition). Petitions for reconsideration of the FIP rule 
were filed by: Delegated States (CA, CT, IL, MA, NJ, NY, DC, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District (CA), and Santa Barbara Air 
Pollution Control District (CA)); and Environmental Groups 
(essentially the same groups that filed petitions to reconsider the 
December 31, 2002 rule).
    On July 11, 2003, we received another petition for 
reconsideration filed by Newmont USA Limited, dba Newmont Mining 
Corporation. This petition was subsequently joined by the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Mining Association. We 
are not responding to that petition at this time, but will do so in 
the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44624), we granted reconsideration on six 
issues raised by petitioners who had filed petitions prior to July 
2003.\3\ At that time, we did not act on any of the remaining issues in 
those petitions. Instead, we indicated that we planned to announce our 
final decision on whether to reconsider the remaining petition issues 
no later than 90 days after the publication of the Federal Register 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In this notice, the term ``petitioner'' refers only to those 
entities that filed petitions for reconsideration with EPA prior to 
July 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first of the six issues on which we granted reconsideration 
involves a document we released in November 2002, entitled 
``Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final 
NSR Improvement Rules.''\4\ Our purpose in granting reconsideration on 
this issue was to provide the public an opportunity to comment on our 
analysis and to submit any additional information that they believe to 
be relevant to the inquiry. The remaining issues for which we granted 
reconsideration involved five narrow aspects of the final rule as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available through our NSR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/nsr 
and in Docket ID No. A-90-37, Document IV-A-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Using potential-to-emit (PTE) to determine baseline actual 
emissions for an emissions unit on which actual construction began 
after the 24-month PAL baseline period when establishing a PAL;
    [sbull] Eliminating synthetic minor limits [(r)(4) limits] under 
the PAL;
    [sbull] Including a ``reasonable possibility'' requirement for 
triggering recordkeeping and reporting provisions;
    [sbull] Using the actual-to-projected-actual test for replacement 
units; and,
    [sbull] Effect of redesignation of an area from attainment to 
nonattainment on Clean Unit status.
    We describe these issues at 68 FR 44624. For the reasons indicated 
at 68 FR 44624, we did not grant a stay of the final rules pending our 
reconsideration of these issues.
    On August 14, 2003, we held a public hearing on the issues for 
which we granted reconsideration. Twenty-two individuals gave oral 
presentations at the hearing. The transcript of their comments is 
located in Docket OAR-2001-0004 (Legacy Number A-90-37), which can be 
accessed on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
    We provided a public comment period on the reconsideration issues 
that ended on August 29, 2003. For issues arising out of the August 
14th public hearing, the comment period was extended until September 
15, 2003. More than 400 written public comments on the reconsideration 
issues were received. The individual comment letters can be found in 
Docket OAR-2001-0004 (Legacy Number A-90-37).

III. Today's Action

    At this time, we are announcing our final action after 
reconsideration of these six issues. We are also announcing our final 
decision on reconsideration of the remaining issues that were raised by 
the petitioners. Today, we are making available a document entitled, 
``Technical Support Document for Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR): 
Reconsideration,'' EPA 456/R-03-005 (Technical Support Document). This 
document contains (1) a summary of comments received on the issues for 
which we granted reconsideration and our responses to these comments, 
and (2) a summary of petition issues for which we are not granting 
reconsideration, and our rationale for denying reconsideration. This 
document is available on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/; and, 
through the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161; telephone (800) 553-6846, e-mail http://www.ntis.gov; and, from the US EPA, Library Services, MD C267-01, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777, e-mail 
[email protected].

A. Six Issues for Which Reconsideration Was Granted

    We received numerous responses to our request for comment on the 
``Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final 
NSR Improvement Rule.'' After carefully considering the information 
that was submitted, we have determined that none of the new information 
presented leads us to conclude that the analysis was incorrect or 
substantially flawed. Therefore, we are re-affirming the validity of 
the original conclusions. A summary of the comments received and our 
responses to these comments can be found in our Technical Support 
Document.
    With respect to the five remaining issues on which we granted 
reconsideration, we have concluded that two clarifications to the 
underlying rules are warranted. These changes relate to issues raised 
as a result of our request for comment on: (1) Whether replacement 
units should be allowed to use the actual-to-projected-actual 
applicability test to determine whether installing a replacement unit 
results in a significant emissions increase; and, (2) using potential-
to-emit (PTE) to determine the baseline actual emissions for an 
emissions unit on which construction began after the 24-month baseline 
period when establishing a PAL. As explained below, while we are not 
making any changes to the general approach in the final rules with 
respect to these issues, we are making two clarifying changes to the 
regulations. First, we are adding a definition of replacement unit to 
the final rules. Second, we are clarifying that the potential-to-emit 
approach for determining baseline actual emissions when establishing a 
PAL is only available to emissions units that are added to the major 
stationary source after the 24-month baseline period, and is not 
available to emissions units that existed during the baseline period 
whether or not they have been modified since that time.
    We are not making any changes to the final rules with respect to 
eliminating synthetic minor limits [(r)(4) limits] under the PAL, the 
``reasonable possibility'' requirement for triggering recordkeeping and 
reporting provisions, or the effect of redesignation of an area from 
attainment to nonattainment on Clean Unit status. Our reasons for this 
conclusion, and our response to significant comments received, are 
summarized in our Technical Support Document.
    1. Replacement Units

[[Page 63024]]

    We have decided to continue to allow the owner or operator of a 
major stationary source (you) to use the actual-to-projected-actual 
applicability test to determine whether installing a replacement unit 
results in a significant emissions increase. However, as we 
reconsidered this issue and reviewed comments, we found one commenter 
that recommended that EPA include a definition of ``replacement unit'' 
in the regulations. The commenter asked that this definition describe 
how the replacement unit may differ from the replaced unit. The 
commenter also recommended that we indicate that the replaced unit must 
be removed from the site or rendered permanently inoperable.
    We believe that the current rules, as supplemented by the 
discussion in the December 2002 preamble, are self-implementing for 
replacement units. Nevertheless, we agree with the commenter that a 
definition of ``replacement unit'' would render implementation easier. 
Thus, today we are adding regulatory language to further clarify our 
intentions regarding replacement units. Today's action revises the 
definition of ``emissions unit'' to clarify that a replacement unit is 
considered an existing emissions unit (e.g., Sec.  51.166(b)(7)(ii)) 
and therefore is eligible for the actual-to-projected-actual test for 
major NSR applicability determinations.
    In addition, today's rule revisions add a definition of 
``replacement unit'' that codifies longstanding policy and practice. In 
the preamble to the 1992 WEPCO rule, we first stated that we would 
``consider a unit to be replaced if it would constitute a reconstructed 
unit within the meaning of 40 CFR 60.15,'' which is the section of the 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) General Provisions that governs 
reconstruction. See 57 FR 32323, column 1. We have adopted this 
threshold in today's rule, by defining ``replacement unit'' to include 
reconstructed units, as well as emissions units that completely take 
the place of an existing emissions unit. See, e.g., Sec.  
51.166(b)(32)(i).
    We note that we have never considered ``replacement units'' to 
include replacements that significantly change the nature of the 
replaced unit; it is this inherent limitation that makes the 
application of the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test 
appropriate. It is reasonable to compare the baseline actual emissions 
from the replaced unit to the projected actual emissions of the 
replacement unit because the units are effectively the same existing 
emissions unit. Thus, consistent with the recently finalized equipment 
replacement exclusion provisions, the limiting principle here is that 
the replacement unit must be identical or functionally equivalent and 
must not change the basic design parameters of the affected process 
unit (e.g., for EUSGUs this might mean heat input and fuel consumption 
specifications). See, e.g., Sec. Sec.  51.166(b)(32)(ii) and (iii). We 
also believe, however, that we need not and should not treat efficiency 
as a basic design parameter, as we do not believe major NSR was 
intended to impede industry in making energy and process efficiency 
improvements. We believe such improvements, on balance, will be 
beneficial both economically and environmentally.
    We also believe that it has always been implicit in the concept of 
a replacement unit that the replaced unit must cease operation. Today's 
rule makes this principle explicit by requiring you to remove or 
permanently disable the replaced unit, or take a permit condition to 
permanently prohibit its operation. In general, if you bring the 
replaced unit back into operation, it must be treated as a new 
emissions unit, to which the actual-to-potential emissions test 
applies. See, e.g., Sec.  51.166(b)(32)(iv).
    Finally, today's rule spells out that you cannot generate an 
emissions reduction credit from emissions reductions that are 
attributable to the shutdown of the replaced emissions unit. See, e.g., 
Sec.  51.166(b)(32). This provision addresses concerns about the 
possible double-counting of emissions reductions that could otherwise 
occur. Thus, if you use the baseline actual emissions of the replaced 
unit when applying the actual-to-projected-actual emissions test to 
measure the emissions increase resulting from the replacement unit, you 
cannot subsequently take credit for the emissions reductions that occur 
when you shut down the replaced unit. However, this provision is not 
intended to prevent you from generating creditable emissions reductions 
through other activities at the replacement unit. For example, you may 
be able to generate an emissions reduction credit if you reduce 
emissions by installing an inherently less-polluting replacement unit 
and accept an enforceable emission limitation that is lower than the 
baseline actual emissions of the replaced unit. Such an emissions 
reduction would be creditable if all other criteria for generating such 
credit are met.
2. Emission Units for Which You Began Actual Construction After the PAL 
Baseline Period
    We have decided to retain the calculation method that uses 
potential-to-emit (PTE) to determine the baseline actual emissions for 
an emissions unit for which you began actual construction after the 24-
month PAL baseline period when establishing a PAL. As we reconsidered 
this issue and reviewed comments, however, we decided it was 
appropriate to clarify that this method of calculation applies only to 
emissions units initially constructed after the PAL baseline period.
    As reflected in the July 30, 2003 Federal Register notice, our 
intent was to limit the use of PTE to emissions units that were not in 
existence during the baseline period. We explained in the July notice 
that we included this provision, and the provision requiring the 
emissions of shut down units to be subtracted from the PAL level, ``in 
recognition that the set of emissions units at your source at the time 
of PAL permit issuance may be different from the set of emissions units 
that existed during the baseline period. You may have constructed 
additional emissions units, permanently shut down previously existing 
emissions units, or both.'' See 68 FR 44625, column 3.
    However, in providing for the inclusion of PTE for some units, the 
language of the rule referred only to ``units on which actual 
construction began'' after the PAL baseline period. See, e.g., 40 CFR 
52.21(aa)(6). ``Construction'' is defined as ``any physical change or 
change in the method of operation (including fabrication, erection, 
installation, demolition, or modification of an emissions unit) which 
would result in a change in actual emissions.'' See, e.g., 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(8). Because the definition of ``construction'' encompasses 
modifications, we are concerned that, in the future, there might be 
confusion regarding the intended scope of this provision. It was not 
our intention to extend this provision to units that merely undergo a 
modification following the baseline period. Therefore, we are changing 
the rule language to explicitly exclude such units.

B. Remaining Issues in Petitions for Reconsideration

    We deny the petitioners' requests for reconsideration on the 
remaining issues raised in the petitions, because they have failed to 
meet the standard for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 
CAA. Specifically,

[[Page 63025]]

the petitioners have failed to show: That it was impracticable to raise 
their objections during the comment period, or that the grounds for 
their objections arose after the close of the comment period; and/or 
that their concern is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
We discuss our reasons for denying reconsideration in the Technical 
Support Document, which is available on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    On December 31, 2002, we finalized rule changes to the regulations 
governing the NSR programs mandated by parts C and D of title I of the 
Act. With today's action we are promulgating two minor clarifications 
to the final rules. Accordingly, we believe that the rationale provided 
with the final rules is still applicable and sufficient.

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within 
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to 
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
We are not promulgating any new paperwork (e.g., monitoring, reporting, 
recordkeeping) as part of today's final action. The OMB has previously 
approved the information collection requirements contained in the 
existing regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned 
OMB control number 2060-0003, EPA ICR number 1230.11. A copy of the OMB 
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from 
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a 
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district, or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's action on small 
entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect, on all of the small entities subject to the rule. A 
Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA), developed as 
part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and incorporated 
into the September 1995 ICR renewal analysis, showed that the changes 
to the NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would not 
have an adverse impact on small entities. This analysis encompassed the 
entire universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be 
small businesses (approximately 50 ``small business'' major sources). 
Because the administrative burden of the NSR program is the primary 
source of the NSR program's regulatory costs, the analysis estimated a 
negligible ``cost to sales'' (regulatory cost divided by the business 
category mean revenue) ratio for this source group. Currently, and as 
reported in the current ICR, there is no economic basis for a different 
conclusion.
    We believe the rule changes in the December 31, 2002 final rule 
will reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program 
for all sources, including all small businesses, by improving the 
operational flexibility of owners and operators, improving the clarity 
of requirements, and providing alternatives that sources may take 
advantage of to further improve their operational flexibility. Today's 
action consists of two minor clarifications to the December 31, 2002 
final rule and does not change our overall assessment of regulatory 
burden. We have therefore concluded that the rule changes in December 
31, 2002 final rule, as clarified by today's action, will relieve 
regulatory burden for all small entities.

[[Page 63026]]

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation as to why 
that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.
    The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that today's action does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. Although initially the changes in the December 
31, 2002 final rule are expected to result in a small increase in the 
burden imposed upon reviewing authorities in order for them to be 
included in the State's SIP, as well as other small increases in burden 
discussed under ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' in the preamble to the 
December 31, 2002 final rule, those revisions will ultimately provide 
greater operational flexibility to sources permitted by the States, 
which will in turn reduce the overall burden of the program on State 
and local authorities by reducing the number of required permit 
modifications. In addition, we believe the 2002 rule changes will 
actually reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR 
program by improving the operational flexibility of owners and 
operators, improving the clarity of requirements, and providing 
alternatives that sources may take advantage of to further improve 
their operational flexibility. Today's action does not increase 
regulatory burden but merely clarifies two aspects of the 2002 rule 
changes. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same reasons stated above, we 
have determined that today's action contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, 
today's action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the 
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's action does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. While the final rule published 
on December 31, 2002 will result in some expenditures by the States, we 
expect those expenditures to be limited to $331,250 per year. This 
figure includes the small increase in the burden imposed upon reviewing 
authorities in order for them to revise the State's SIP. However, the 
revisions contained in the December 31, 2002 final rule provide greater 
operational flexibility to sources permitted by the States, which will 
in turn reduce the overall burden of the program on State and local 
authorities by reducing the number of required permit modifications. 
Today's action does not increase regulatory burden but merely clarifies 
two aspects of the December 31, 2002 final rule. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to today's action.

F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' Today's action does not have 
tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The purpose of the December 31, 2002 final rule is to add greater 
flexibility to the existing major NSR regulations. Those changes will 
benefit permitting authorities and the regulated community, including 
any major source owned by a tribal government or located in or near 
tribal land, by providing increased certainty as to when the 
requirements of the NSR program apply. Taken as a whole, the December 
31, 2002 final rule should result in no added burden or compliance 
costs and should not substantially change the level of environmental 
performance achieved under the previous rules.
    EPA anticipates that initially the changes in the December 31, 2002 
final rule will result in a small increase in the burden imposed upon 
Reviewing Authorities in order for them to be included in the State's 
SIP. Nevertheless, those revisions will ultimately provide greater 
operational flexibility to sources permitted by the States, which will 
in turn reduce the overall burden of the program on State and local 
authorities by reducing the number of required permit modifications. In 
comparison, no tribal government currently has an approved tribal 
implementation plan (TIP) under the Clean Air Act to implement the NSR 
program. The Federal government is currently the NSR permitting 
authority in Indian country. Thus, tribal governments should not 
experience added burden from the December 31, 2002 final rule, nor 
should their laws be affected with respect to implementation of that 
rule. Additionally, although major stationary sources affected by the 
December 31, 2002 final rule could be located in or near Indian country 
and/or be owned or operated by tribal governments, such sources would 
not incur additional costs or compliance burdens as a result of that 
rule. Instead, the only effect on such sources should

[[Page 63027]]

be the benefit of the added certainty and flexibility provided by that 
rule. For the reasons stated above, we do not believe that today's 
action, which clarifies two aspects of the December 31, 2002 final 
rule, would increase burden for tribal governments. In addition, we do 
not anticipate that today's action would have substantial direct 
effects on sources located in or near Indian country or sources owned 
or operated by tribal governments.
    In our July 30, 2003 notice, EPA specifically solicited additional 
comment on today's final action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's action is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. We believe that the December 31, 
2002 final rule as a whole will result in equal or better environmental 
protection than provided by earlier regulations, and do so in a more 
streamlined and effective manner. Similarly, today's action merely 
clarifies two aspects of the December 31, 2002 final rule and does not 
change substantially the level of environmental protection provided by 
that rule. As a result, today's action is not expected to present a 
disproportionate environmental health or safety risk for children.

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Today's action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The 
December 31, 2002 final rule improves the ability of sources to 
undertake pollution prevention or energy efficiency projects, switch to 
less polluting fuels or raw materials, maintain the reliability of 
production facilities, and effectively utilize and improve existing 
capacity. That rule also includes a number of provisions to streamline 
administrative and permitting processes so that facilities can quickly 
accommodate changes in supply and demand. It provides several 
alternatives that are specifically designed to reduce administrative 
burden for sources that use pollution prevention or energy efficient 
projects. Today's action merely clarifies two aspects of the December 
31, 2002 final rule and thus is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, 
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, Sec.  5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 
the final rule and other required information to the United States 
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. Sec.  804(2). The rule will be 
effective November 7, 2003.

V. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 
101, 111, 114, 116, 301, and 307 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 
7407, 7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

VI. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the December 
31, 2002 final rule is available only by the filing of a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by March 3, 2003. Any such judicial review is limited to only 
those objections that are raised with reasonable specificity in timely 
comments. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are 
the subject of the December 31, 2002 final rule may not be challenged 
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these 
requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: October 30, 2003.
Marianne Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
2. Section 51.165 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(vii)(B).
0
b. By adding paragraph (a)(1)(xxi).
0
c. By revising paragraph (f)(6).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  51.165  Permit requirements.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 63028]]

    (1) * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (B) An existing emissions unit is any emissions unit that does not 
meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(1)(vii)(A) of this section. A 
replacement unit, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxi) of this section, 
is an existing emissions unit.
* * * * *
    (xxi) Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the 
criteria listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(xxi)(A) through (D) of this 
section are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be generated 
from shutting down the existing emissions unit that is replaced.
    (A) The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning 
of Sec.  60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the emissions unit completely 
takes the place of an existing emissions unit.
    (B) The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent 
to the replaced emissions unit.
    (C) The replacement does not alter the basic design parameters (as 
discussed in paragraph (h)(2) of this section) of the process unit.
    (D) The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the 
major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or permanently 
barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as a practical 
matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back into operation, 
it shall constitute a new emissions unit.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) Setting the 10-year actuals PAL level. (i) Except as provided 
in paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section, the plan shall provide that 
the actuals PAL level for a major stationary source shall be 
established as the sum of the baseline actual emissions (as defined in 
paragraph (a)(1)(xxxv) of this section) of the PAL pollutant for each 
emissions unit at the source; plus an amount equal to the applicable 
significant level for the PAL pollutant under paragraph (a)(1)(x) of 
this section or under the Act, whichever is lower. When establishing 
the actuals PAL level, for a PAL pollutant, only one consecutive 24-
month period must be used to determine the baseline actual emissions 
for all existing emissions units. However, a different consecutive 24-
month period may be used for each different PAL pollutant. Emissions 
associated with units that were permanently shut down after this 24-
month period must be subtracted from the PAL level. The reviewing 
authority shall specify a reduced PAL level(s) (in tons/yr) in the PAL 
permit to become effective on the future compliance date(s) of any 
applicable Federal or State regulatory requirement(s) that the 
reviewing authority is aware of prior to issuance of the PAL permit. 
For instance, if the source owner or operator will be required to 
reduce emissions from industrial boilers in half from baseline 
emissions of 60 ppm NOX to a new rule limit of 30 ppm, then 
the permit shall contain a future effective PAL level that is equal to 
the current PAL level reduced by half of the original baseline 
emissions of such unit(s).
    (ii) For newly constructed units (which do not include 
modifications to existing units) on which actual construction began 
after the 24-month period, in lieu of adding the baseline actual 
emissions as specified in paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section, the 
emissions must be added to the PAL level in an amount equal to the 
potential to emit of the units.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 51.166 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b)(7)(ii).
0
b. By adding paragraph (b)(32).
0
c. By revising paragraph (w)(6).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  51.166  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

    (b) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) An existing emissions unit is any emissions unit that does not 
meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. A 
replacement unit, as defined in paragraph (b)(32) of this section, is 
an existing emissions unit.
* * * * *
    (32) Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the 
criteria listed in paragraphs (b)(32)(i) through (iv) of this section 
are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be generated from 
shutting down the existing emissions unit that is replaced.
    (i) The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning 
of Sec.  60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the emissions unit completely 
takes the place of an existing emissions unit.
    (ii) The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent 
to the replaced emissions unit.
    (iii) The replacement does not change the basic design parameter(s) 
(as discussed in paragraph (y)(2) of this section) of the process unit.
    (iv) The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the 
major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or permanently 
barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as a practical 
matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back into operation, 
it shall constitute a new emissions unit.
* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (6) Setting the 10-year actuals PAL level. (i) Except as provided 
in paragraph (w)(6)(ii) of this section, the plan shall provide that 
the actuals PAL level for a major stationary source shall be 
established as the sum of the baseline actual emissions (as defined in 
paragraph (b)(47) of this section) of the PAL pollutant for each 
emissions unit at the source; plus an amount equal to the applicable 
significant level for the PAL pollutant under paragraph (b)(23) of this 
section or under the Act, whichever is lower. When establishing the 
actuals PAL level, for a PAL pollutant, only one consecutive 24-month 
period must be used to determine the baseline actual emissions for all 
existing emissions units. However, a different consecutive 24-month 
period may be used for each different PAL pollutant. Emissions 
associated with units that were permanently shut down after this 24-
month period must be subtracted from the PAL level. The reviewing 
authority shall specify a reduced PAL level(s) (in tons/yr) in the PAL 
permit to become effective on the future compliance date(s) of any 
applicable Federal or State regulatory requirement(s) that the 
reviewing authority is aware of prior to issuance of the PAL permit. 
For instance, if the source owner or operator will be required to 
reduce emissions from industrial boilers in half from baseline 
emissions of 60 ppm NOX to a new rule limit of 30 ppm, then 
the permit shall contain a future effective PAL level that is equal to 
the current PAL level reduced by half of the original baseline 
emissions of such unit(s).
    (ii) For newly constructed units (which do not include 
modifications to existing units) on which actual construction began 
after the 24-month period, in lieu of adding the baseline actual 
emissions as specified in paragraph (w)(6)(i) of this section, the 
emissions must be added to the PAL level in an amount equal to the 
potential to emit of the units.
* * * * *

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 52.21 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b)(7)(ii).
0
b. By adding paragraph (b)(33).
0
c. By revising paragraph (aa)(6).

[[Page 63029]]

    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

    (b) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) An existing emissions unit is any emissions unit that does not 
meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. A 
replacement unit, as defined in paragraph (b)(33) of this section, is 
an existing emissions unit.
* * * * *
    (33) Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the 
criteria listed in paragraphs (b)(33)(i) through (iv) of this section 
are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be generated from 
shutting down the existing emissions unit that is replaced.
    (i) The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning 
of Sec.  60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the emissions unit completely 
takes the place of an existing emissions unit.
    (ii) The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent 
to the replaced emissions unit.
    (iii) The replacement does not alter the basic design parameters 
(as discussed in paragraph (cc)(2) of this section) of the process 
unit.
    (iv) The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the 
major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or permanently 
barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as a practical 
matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back into operation, 
it shall constitute a new emissions unit.
* * * * *
    (aa) * * *
    (6) Setting the 10-year actuals PAL level. (i) Except as provided 
in paragraph (aa)(6)(ii) of this section, the plan shall provide that 
the actuals PAL level for a major stationary source shall be 
established as the sum of the baseline actual emissions (as defined in 
paragraph (b)(48) of this section) of the PAL pollutant for each 
emissions unit at the source; plus an amount equal to the applicable 
significant level for the PAL pollutant under paragraph (b)(23) of this 
section or under the Act, whichever is lower. When establishing the 
actuals PAL level, for a PAL pollutant, only one consecutive 24-month 
period must be used to determine the baseline actual emissions for all 
existing emissions units. However, a different consecutive 24-month 
period may be used for each different PAL pollutant. Emissions 
associated with units that were permanently shut down after this 24-
month period must be subtracted from the PAL level. The reviewing 
authority shall specify a reduced PAL level(s) (in tons/yr) in the PAL 
permit to become effective on the future compliance date(s) of any 
applicable Federal or State regulatory requirement(s) that the 
reviewing authority is aware of prior to issuance of the PAL permit. 
For instance, if the source owner or operator will be required to 
reduce emissions from industrial boilers in half from baseline 
emissions of 60 ppm NOX to a new rule limit of 30 ppm, then 
the permit shall contain a future effective PAL level that is equal to 
the current PAL level reduced by half of the original baseline 
emissions of such unit(s).
    (ii) For newly constructed units (which do not include 
modifications to existing units) on which actual construction began 
after the 24-month period, in lieu of adding the baseline actual 
emissions as specified in paragraph (aa)(6)(i) of this section, the 
emissions must be added to the PAL level in an amount equal to the 
potential to emit of the units.

[FR Doc. 03-28104 Filed 11-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P